U.S. Open Winner Gets a $316K Raise This Year

[nevets88]

Never underestimate the power of outdoing competing majors to bump up the winnings pool. That's a 20% bump for the winner - don't we all wish we got increases like that. The WUSO will get an extra half a million added to total prize money.

Quote

"When you look at the USGA championships, by and large just about any way you look at, they’re the most important championships not only in the U.S. but in the world," Mike Davis, USGA executive director/CEO, said on Saturday prior to the USGA Annual Meeting in Washington, D.C. "And we talked about that and said the purses really should reflect that.”

The winner's share will see a significant raise as well. Last season, Dustin Johnson received $1.8 million for his efforts at Oakmont. This year's champion will take home $2.16 million.

http://www.golfdigest.com/story/usga-adds-dollar2-million-to-2017-us-open-purse-for-record-payout

[65ross]

Caddies love that 10% = $31,600. Oh to be a caddie in this day and age.

[bkuehn1952]

Has anyone ever complained that they don't win enough for participating in the U.S. Open? Maybe the money the USGA threw into the pot may have helped in some other area.  When an organization is rolling in money, it is too easy to take the attitude that a few million here or there is no big deal.

[iacas]

On 2/9/2017 at 7:07 AM, bkuehn1952 said:

Has anyone ever complained that they don't win enough for participating in the U.S. Open? Maybe the money the USGA threw into the pot may have helped in some other area.  When an organization is rolling in money, it is too easy to take the attitude that a few million here or there is no big deal.

Kinda beside the point, no? They wanted to be the biggest purse. So now they are. For awhile they were third or fourth.

[bkuehn1952]

7 hours ago, iacas said:

Kinda beside the point, no? They wanted to be the biggest purse. So now they are. For awhile they were third or fourth.

I will grant you that their goal to have the largest purse fits their idea that the US Open is the most important title. From that standpoint, mission accomplished, for now.

Still, the USGA is supposedly a charitable organization. Purse inflation because of the goal to be the "most" somewhat runs contrary to charitable principals.

And while we are at it, wouldn't creating matching purses for the Men & Women's Open be a statement about "pay equity"?  Yes, the Men's Open pays its own way & more while the Women's Open limps along.  Still, I would support that move more than inflating the Men's total purse in an effort to be #1.  They are closing the gap; it could move at a faster pace. 

[iacas]

59 minutes ago, bkuehn1952 said:

Still, the USGA is supposedly a charitable organization. Purse inflation because of the goal to be the "most" somewhat runs contrary to charitable principals.

No they're not. They're an administrative body with a healthy amount of charitable giving.

59 minutes ago, bkuehn1952 said:

And while we are at it, wouldn't creating matching purses for the Men & Women's Open be a statement about "pay equity"?

Yeah, but it'd also be ridiculously stupid, too. Why get involved in politics or anything to that extent? The women's game doesn't earn as much. The payouts used to be a percentage of gate receipts. This kinda carries on that tradition.

I'm not supporting the tradition of it either. Just saying it'd be stupid and there's no need. Women's events lose money as they are (for the USGA).

[Quadhole]

Wonder who is losing money to compensate...

[Shindig]

So now we all need to convince our bosses that the USGA is competition ... ;)

I also like that the purses are increasing, even though I won't see a dime of it.  It says to me golf remains commercially viable as a product -- good televised golf is exactly the right pace for me to enjoying watching (if only I had the time to sit down and do so).

[nevets88]

38 minutes ago, Shindig said:

So now we all need to convince our bosses that the USGA is competition ... ;)

I also like that the purses are increasing, even though I won't see a dime of it.  It says to me golf remains commercially viable as a product -- good televised golf is exactly the right pace for me to enjoying watching (if only I had the time to sit down and do so).

I'm a little more cynical. Higher purses make me think more ads and commercials. But the networks are willing to pony up more and more, so working out.

[Shindig]

2 hours ago, nevets88 said:

I'm a little more cynical. Higher purses make me think more ads and commercials. But the networks are willing to pony up more and more, so working out.

True.  Probably.  Maybe the Masters' purse is a better indicator?  Or a worse one, I can't decide which.

[iacas]

2 hours ago, nevets88 said:

I'm a little more cynical. Higher purses make me think more ads and commercials. But the networks are willing to pony up more and more, so working out.

Fox paid a pretty penny remember.

[nevets88]

45 minutes ago, iacas said:

Fox paid a pretty penny remember.

Never underestimate the power of the need to develop your channel's golf credentials to bump up a television contract.